COVID-19
Biden HHS extends immunity for COVID shot manufacturers through 2029
From LifeSiteNews
Biden Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra signed an extension of COVID-19 related liability shields until 2029, ahead of Joe Biden’s departure from the White House, and Donald Trump’s administration may be unable to reverse it.
U.S. Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra has signed an extension of COVID-19 related liability shields until 2029, ahead of President Joe Biden’s departure from the White House.
Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID outbreak, the first Trump administration invoked the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 to declare the virus a “public health emergency.”
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Under this “sweeping” immunity, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those “countermeasures” are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from them, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”
The protection has faced criticism for preventing Big Pharma and various medical institutions from being held accountable for measures that did more harm than good. But on December 11, Becerra issued an amendment to “extend the time period of PREP Act coverage through December 31, 2029. COVID-19 continues to present a credible risk of a future public health emergency,” he claimed.
The amendment “includes extending the time period for PREP Act coverage for licensed pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and qualified technicians, which allows for continued access by the recipient Population to Covered Countermeasures that are COVID-19 vaccines, seasonal influenza vaccines and COVID-19 tests.”
“As qualified persons, these licensed pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and qualified pharmacy technicians will be afforded liability protections in accordance with the PREP Act and the terms of this amended Declaration,” the statement adds. “To the extent that any State law would otherwise prohibit these healthcare professionals who are a ‘qualified person’ from prescribing, dispensing, or administering Covered Countermeasures that are COVID-19 vaccines, seasonal influenza vaccines or COVID-19 tests, such law is preempted.”
The Daily Mail notes that the move means pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna would be shielded from lawsuits over the harm of their mRNA-based COVID shots for another five years.
More significantly, the incoming Trump administration might be powerless to rescind the extension, according to attorney Ray Flores: “The Pfizer and Moderna [COVID shot] contracts guarantee that these manufacturers are protected by the PREP Act. If the emergency ends, then vaccines already in distribution, if administered, could trigger manufacturer liability.”
A large body of evidence identifies serious risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 jabs, and offered several theories for a causal link.
In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.” The findings of both efforts are highly anticipated.
All eyes are currently on returning President Donald Trump and his health team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services. They have given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which Trump has long taken credit, and he has nominated both critics and defenders of establishment COVID measures for a number of administration roles.
COVID-19
Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous
From LifeSiteNews
Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling ‘unsafe’ following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable
A federal judge ruled that complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ending the final chapter of COVID regulations.
According to information published on January 15 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling unsafe following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable.
“The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted Covid-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to Covid-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,” wrote the court.
Masks were mandated in federal workplaces from April 20, 2020, to February 14, 2023, under the direction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, millions of Canadians were forced to mask in public settings such as grocery stores or hospitals.
After the mandate had lifted, Juzda, a “fully vaccinated” individual without any particular health issues, complained that he felt unsafe in the Gatineau headquarters.
“I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,” he wrote, referencing the Canada Labor Code that allows federally regulated staff to refuse work “that constitutes a danger to the employee.”
Juzda claimed that masking “reduces the risk of contracting Covid-19 but is of limited effectiveness if not combined with other measures, particularly during prolonged exposure to unmasked infected individuals such as being nearby in an indoor office for an entire day.”
“Covid-19 is a disease that in addition to often being extremely unpleasant during the acute period poses significant risks including death,” he continued.
“Handwashing and workplace cleaning are of minimal use in limiting the spread of Covid-19,” Juzda claimed.
His complaint was quickly dismissed as “frivolous” by executives, a move which Duchesne agreed with, calling Juzda’s concerns unwarranted.
Indeed, LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on overwhelming evidence showing that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission of COVID and that they come with harmful effects.
Back in 2021, 47 studies confirmed the ineffectiveness of masks for COVID, while 32 more confirmed their negative health effects.
According to another 2021 report, more than 170 studies have found that masks have been ineffective at stopping COVID and instead have been harmful, especially to children.
In fact, in 2020, before masks were widely mandated, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam admitted that masks were not effective in preventing COVID.
“There is no need to use a mask for well people,” she said in the first few weeks of the pandemic. “It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.”
COVID-19
Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children
From LifeSiteNews
Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects
Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.
According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.
“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.
“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.
In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.
The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”
Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.
Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”
Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.
According to 2021 data, only 17.49 percent of children ages five to 11 in Canada have received at least one dose of the COVID injection. Additionally, of elementary school-age kids who have had both doses of the COVID shots, only 0.6 percent are counted as “fully vaccinated.”
Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.
Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.
The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.
The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
No, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done
-
Business1 day ago
Donald Trump appoints Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone as special ambassadors to Hollywood
-
Business2 days ago
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Death of an Open A.I. Whistleblower
-
Addictions20 hours ago
Annual cannabis survey reveals many positive trends — and some concerning ones
-
Business19 hours ago
We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy
-
Brownstone Institute18 hours ago
The Cure for Vaccine Skepticism